> Honest question, why this qualifier? Nobody expects a human to agree with everything another person says.
These types of disclaimers are anti-intellectual and you should continue to point them out when you see them.
I could write a genius paper with bad grammar and poor spelling, and it wouldn't detract at all from my intellectual arguments. However, very few people look at basic editing, spellchecking, and word choices and say that they're anti-intellectual -- nobody claims that by caring about spelling I'm training my audience to be dismissive or shallow when evaluating papers.
Back when I was writing college essays, I would go even farther; I would tailor my grammar to specific people. I knew that certain forums disliked second-person voice or sentence fragments. Other forums leaned in the opposite direction, and I would take a more casual approach.
If you know that your audience has a certain expectation, bias, or ingrained belief, it is good to address that from the start. It's not encouraging laziness or reinforcing a bad habit, it's just making sure that the people you communicate with are on the same page as you. Worry less about what your responsibilities are as a communicator, and worry more about just getting your ideas across -- regardless of whether that entails couching your language or adding disclaimers.
There are very few disclaimers, language choices, or style alterations that I won't use if I'm trying to communicate an intellectual point with someone I know, because I care about them understanding me. Literally everything else is secondary.
This is a strawman.
> I could write a genius paper with bad grammar and poor spelling, and it wouldn't detract at all from my intellectual arguments.
It would.
Your life advice here isn't bad, but it's unrelated to my original statement. What you're describing is basically code switching.
Is it? My (perhaps incorrect) understanding of your argument is that your audience should already understand that agreeing in part is not agreeing in full, and that more to the point, if they don't already know that they might not be worth communicating with in the first place.
My argument is that it's a good idea to worry less about what people should know, and more about working around what they do know.
Sometimes good communication means accommodating people's biases and misconceptions about how the world works, and addressing those misconceptions up-front.
> What you're describing is basically code switching.
Sure. And what quotemstr is doing isn't code switching? What is the difference between dismissing an argument because of the source and dismissing it because it was spelled wrong? Why should I accommodate one behavior and not the other?
They are, but it's a habit gained from forums with a broader audience, like Reddit, where a single mistake or unacceptable association can have your voice removed from the discussion.